MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545825195

THE EFFECT OF BACKGROUND NOISE ON SOUND POWER IN BOTH A REVERBERANT AND ANECHOIC ENVIRONMENT

2002· article· en· W1545825195 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Colin Novak, Helen Ule, Ramani Ramakrishnan, Robert Gaspar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnechoic chamberAcousticsSound powerSound intensityNoise (video)Ambient noise levelReverberationReverberation roomSound (geography)Background noisePower (physics)Critical distancePhysicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advantages of determination of sound power of a source by using sound intensity measurements were discussed. The effect of background noise on sound power in a reverberant and anechoic environment was studied. Results showed that a stationary background noise upto 15 dB greater than the source under consideration had no effect on the sound power measurements in both reverberant and anechoic environments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207